New election strategy

November 25th, 2020 at 8:03:08 AM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4157
Maybe this will be TLDR.... but here goes...

In the Florida State Senate races there were a few (3?) that were supposed to be close. For simplicity's sake I'll say D was running against R. So there was a third candidate who basically said "D is not progressive enough. Vote for me as I am more for Democrat ideas than main guy, D, is." So R got 100k votes, D got 99k votes, and third guy got 4k votes. If those 4k were forced to vote for either D or R they most assuredly would have voted for D. Kind of like how Ralph Nader most assuredly got Bush elected over Gore.

But here is the difference. Nader actually was a real candidate with real beliefs, and did not run for the express purpose of having Bush beat Gore.

Apparently, in the Florida examples, the third candidates were actually people who were life long Republicans, who were ONLY running under false pretenses. And were funded by 'dark money' accounts that also had the motive of having the R win, not the fake 3rd guy.

I asked my extremely liberal son what he thought, and his answer was .... "slimy, but probably not illegal". He mentioned that one of the fake candidates was named "Alex Rodriguez", and the real D candidate also shared the last name Rodriguez.

The Georgia system for the Senate of requiring 50% to win or you go to a run off would end this scam. But I don't want multiple elections for the same office. Do you really want to vote twice for your State Assemblyman? I think not. But on the other hand this type of voter manipulation will probably increase, as it WORKED this time.

I want to prevent this... but how?
November 25th, 2020 at 8:24:39 AM permalink
flebner37
Member since: Jun 29, 2020
Threads: 0
Posts: 5
Ranked-choice voting is one possible answer. The runoff involves some number crunching with the original ballots, rather than a revote. I remember reading that Maine uses this approach,. I haven't heard of any problems yet.
November 25th, 2020 at 8:25:04 AM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: SOOPOO
Maybe this will be TLDR.... but here goes...

In the Florida State Senate races there were a few (3?) that were supposed to be close. For simplicity's sake I'll say D was running against R. So there was a third candidate who basically said "D is not progressive enough. Vote for me as I am more for Democrat ideas than main guy, D, is." So R got 100k votes, D got 99k votes, and third guy got 4k votes. If those 4k were forced to vote for either D or R they most assuredly would have voted for D. Kind of like how Ralph Nader most assuredly got Bush elected over Gore.

But here is the difference. Nader actually was a real candidate with real beliefs, and did not run for the express purpose of having Bush beat Gore.

Apparently, in the Florida examples, the third candidates were actually people who were life long Republicans, who were ONLY running under false pretenses. And were funded by 'dark money' accounts that also had the motive of having the R win, not the fake 3rd guy.

I asked my extremely liberal son what he thought, and his answer was .... "slimy, but probably not illegal". He mentioned that one of the fake candidates was named "Alex Rodriguez", and the real D candidate also shared the last name Rodriguez.

The Georgia system for the Senate of requiring 50% to win or you go to a run off would end this scam. But I don't want multiple elections for the same office. Do you really want to vote twice for your State Assemblyman? I think not. But on the other hand this type of voter manipulation will probably increase, as it WORKED this time.

I want to prevent this... but how?


I am a resident of GA. And, I was shocked with the runoff system, for everything from Senators to Mayors, to random local elected offices that most people probably never heard of (which makes seemingly just about every part of every year an election season for something even if its a random local election runoff)....

I am not sure how many other states have such a system (I have never seen it before). Generally its annoying because it drags out the several more months than it needs to.... As for how politically positive it is, I don't know.

I think it certainly solves the problem that you bring up, I am not sure if there is a more effective way to solve that problem or not.
I think some European Countries have runoffs for certain elections and it seems to work well there (it wittles away the fringe candidates and allows the two most popular to face off), (A quick good search and apparently they call it the "two-round system" over there, though you can always win the first round with a clear majority, so very similar to the GA system).

Its a good question, and one that I probably should think more about.
November 25th, 2020 at 8:46:01 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687
For that particular case, informed voters / voter education has got to be the best solution.

If the voters actually knew who the candidates were, then they wouldn't fall for voting for the wrong candidate with the same last name.

I'm also in favor of 50%+1 required to win, with ranked choice voting.

Ranked choice voting would be a boon to voter choice and more than two parties.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
November 25th, 2020 at 8:59:03 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18633
Quote: SOOPOO
Maybe this will be TLDR.... but here goes...

In the Florida State Senate races there were a few (3?) that were supposed to be close. For simplicity's sake I'll say D was running against R. So there was a third candidate who basically said "D is not progressive enough. Vote for me as I am more for Democrat ideas than main guy, D, is." So R got 100k votes, D got 99k votes, and third guy got 4k votes. If those 4k were forced to vote for either D or R they most assuredly would have voted for D. Kind of like how Ralph Nader most assuredly got Bush elected over Gore.

But here is the difference. Nader actually was a real candidate with real beliefs, and did not run for the express purpose of having Bush beat Gore.

Apparently, in the Florida examples, the third candidates were actually people who were life long Republicans, who were ONLY running under false pretenses. And were funded by 'dark money' accounts that also had the motive of having the R win, not the fake 3rd guy.

I asked my extremely liberal son what he thought, and his answer was .... "slimy, but probably not illegal". He mentioned that one of the fake candidates was named "Alex Rodriguez", and the real D candidate also shared the last name Rodriguez.

The Georgia system for the Senate of requiring 50% to win or you go to a run off would end this scam. But I don't want multiple elections for the same office. Do you really want to vote twice for your State Assemblyman? I think not. But on the other hand this type of voter manipulation will probably increase, as it WORKED this time.

I want to prevent this... but how?


Short answer -
From the free speech side of things, you should be able to combat these kinds of things in the next campaign even if it worked this time. If a lot of people get sold beautiful waterfront property in the the Everglades because they believed a guy on their phone, you can fight that with education the next time around.

Generally I like to send the Feds after guys selling scams, but election deception through hype, probably should be combatted with free speech exposing it.

Now if there is some problem with this that makes exposing it not work, then we definitely need a legal process instead.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
November 26th, 2020 at 2:28:45 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 154
Posts: 5055
runoff elections are a pain, but I am totally for them

for one thing I do not think in this day and age the two party system works, I would like to see more real choices when I vote. Now, I know if I vote for the Libertarian, say, the way it works it likely just is the same as voting for the Democrat. If we had runoffs, the Libertarian would initially get more votes, being more viable, and in the end has a real chance of winning.

I often groan at the choices we get. This time was a good example, I did not like the choice, Trump or Biden [only viable choices that is].

We'd probably see a third party develop and be strong, maybe it'd become the moderate choice. That might be the Libertarians of today, or maybe something else would develop. I'm convinced they have to have a shot at the Presidency to become a real alternative.

PS: I am for a quick runoff though, not in January! I think there is even a way to vote once to eliminate wins with less than 50%, I think the voter picks first choice and then second choice without any runoff.
I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]